conformity to social roles

• Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment procedure: A mock prison was set up in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University. 21 male student volunteers were involved which we randomly allocated to the role of guard or prisoner. The social roles were encouraged into 2 routes which were uniform (prisoners were strip-searched, given a uniform and number. This encouraged de-individuation) and instructions about behaviour (prisoners were told they couldn’t leave but have to ask for parole. Guards told they had complete power over prisoners)
• Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment findings: the guards played their roles and reacted prisoners harshly. The prisoners rebelled within 2 days by ripping their uniforms, shouted and swore. The guards retailated. The guards’ behaviour threatened the prisoners’ psychological and physical health. For example, after the rebellion was put down, the prisoners became subdued, anxious and depressed. Three prisoners were released early because they showed signs of psychological disturbance. The study was stopped after 6 days instead of the planned 14 days.
• Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment conclusions: social roles are powerful influences on behaviour and most conformed strongly to their role. Guards became brutal, prisoners became submissive
• One strength of the prison experiment is the control over key variables. Emotionally stable participants were recruited and randomly allocated the roles of guard or prisoner. The guards and prisoners had those roles only by chance. So their behaviour was due to the role itself and not their personalities. This control increased the study’s internal validity, so we have more confidence in drawing conclusions about the effect of social roles on conformity
• One limitation is that Zimbardo exaggerated the power of roles. The power of social roles to influence behaviour may have been exaggerated in the experiment. Only a third of the guards behaved brutally. Another third applied the rules fairly. The rest supported the prisoner, offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges. This suggests the experiment overstates the view that the guards were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences
• One limitation is that experiment lacked realism of a true prison. Banuazizi and Mohavedi suggest participants were play acting. Their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave. One guard based his role on a character from a film and prisoners rioted because they thought that’s what real prisoners did. This suggests the experiment tells us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons